October 2021
Collapse, Containment, and the Cost of Silence
The System Folded, and I Was Left Holding Every Shard
Where legal threats became daily pressure, my solicitor vanished into invoices, and the hearing arrived before the barrister she had instructed had finished reading the file.
By October, I was fraying — but holding. Still documenting. Still responding. But the pressure wasn’t procedural anymore. It was daily, intentional, and suffocating.
The Pressure Campaign
From early October, the defence solicitor began sending legal threats at scale:
- Eight emails in a single day, many late into the evening
- Demands to settle, redraft, pay, concede — over and over
- Delayed filings, followed by accusations that I was the one causing confusion
- Instructions buried in “courtesies,” and threats framed as “opportunities”
There was no let-up. I was responding to a solicitor with a team — while being left solo, holding my own line.
The Hearing Bundle I Was Denied — Until I Forced It
“I have prepared the bundle which I will lodge with the Court. I am happy to copy you in but obviously I am concerned as to whether you will have capacity to receive it.” — (Defence solicitor, 26 October, 13:59)
That concern? A manufactured excuse.
I’d already confirmed months earlier that email was acceptable — but never waived my legal right to service by post. He quoted my line out of context, presenting my accessibility as a reason to withhold procedural access.
The reality:
- He never posted the bundle — despite knowing how critical it was
- He introduced a secure system I hadn’t heard of, hadn’t consented to, and couldn’t safely navigate
- I had to get someone else to open the portal for me — and even then, I didn’t know what I was downloading
The only reason I got that bundle — was because I contacted the Court myself.
Not because he made access possible.
Because I made obstruction undeniable.
And when he wrote again asking “Did you get the bundle?”
It wasn’t follow-up.
It was smirking theatre.
His secretary was off sick.
His post never arrived.
And his system was designed to confuse, not cooperate.
This wasn’t confusion. It was tactical design.
It wasn’t just one failure. It was five:
- The pressure campaign
- The bundle obstruction
- The solicitor silence
- The court hearing
- The emotional collapse
October doesn’t belong to any chapter. It belongs to the record.
What unfolded wasn’t a procedural misstep — it was a collapse of protection, a failure of care, and a loss that no transcript will ever carry.
The system didn’t just falter.
It folded.
And I was left holding every shard.
Chapter 3 doesn’t begin with recovery.
It begins with containment — of grief, of fallout, of the silence that followed.
Manni-Boo is remembered — Always.
October 2021 – The Solicitor Who Stayed Off-Record — and Off-Duty
Where legal threats became daily pressure, my solicitor vanished into invoices, and the hearing arrived before the barrister she had instructed had finished reading the file.
Throughout October, the claimant’s solicitor-maintained contact.
But her emails didn’t offer protection.
They offered excuses.
I didn’t receive legal strategy.
I received vague updates about diary clashes and IT issues.
And while I was being hit daily by pressure emails from the defence, she said nothing — not to the defence solicitor, not to the barrister, not to the Court.
She didn’t intervene when my son’s vulnerabilities were weaponised in the strike-out application, and never once challenged the bundle issue.
I chased her. I prompted her. I even asked if anyone on our side had read the file in full.
She replied, eventually, requesting payment for a barrister on 21 October.
Even that wasn’t enough.
On 22 October — seven days before the hearing — she asked me to resend every final signed document: my Reply to Defence, my Witness Statement, and more.
All structured into PDFs. All organised by date. All rebuilt by me — while I was still managing my son’s health, responding to pressure emails, and trying to keep our claim alive. “I’m hoping we won’t need to do much in relation to the strike out…” — (Claimant’s solicitor, 14 October, 15:34)
Hope wasn’t a strategy.
Preparation would’ve been. But she didn’t prepare.
She delegated — to me.
Even the hearing access had to be chased — by me, again.
I received an email asking whether I’d received joining instructions — not to confirm that our side was ready, but to check if I’d managed to do it.
I wasn’t just holding the line.
I was coordinating the defence while paying the people who should’ve done it for us.
That wasn’t legal representation.
It was legal abandonment by proxy.
She’d drafted every document.
I returned each signed copy instantly — because we both knew there wasn’t time to waste before the hearing.
And yet, when it came to briefing the barrister, she didn’t send him what she’d sent me.
She didn’t brief him on the bundle obstruction.
She didn’t mention the emails, the tactics, the weight behind the questions I wasn’t meant to answer.
I didn’t receive the 29 October hearing transcript until the following year — delayed by cost.
But when I did, it confirmed what I’d feared:
- “I've only been brought into this yesterday.”
- “I wasn’t aware of that, sir.”
- “I was instructed by the claimant’s firm, although curiously they’re no longer on the record.”
These weren’t technical oversights.
They were proof that the barrister wasn’t fully briefed.
The claimant’s solicitor had been involved since March.
She knew the claim.
She knew the pressure.
She chose not to attend.
She chose not to inform.
The Moment That Ends Every Sentence
In the early hours of 30 October 2021, just hours after that hearing…
I found my cub trying to take his own life.
- No court transcript includes that.
- No email chain reflects it.
- No costs schedule accounts for it.
- But it happened.
- And it happened because the weight broke him — and nearly me.
Why October 2021 Must Be Left Intact — And Must Be Read
This wasn’t a procedural month.
This was emotional collapse by legal pressure.
Not just mine — my son’s too.
“He’s trying to destroy us, Mum.”
“I don’t know what’s real anymore.” — (My son, in the final days before the hearing)
We weren’t playing games.
We weren’t obstructing justice.
We were responding like people — with trauma, with fear, with love — and still trying to protect the truth.
These pages do not ask for pity.
They ask for honesty.
Because this is where the law stopped being a process — and became something else entirely.
But I rebuilt anyway.
Not because I was ready.
Because I refused to let October be the last word.
Note: At no stage during October 2021 — despite documented harassment, safeguarding vulnerabilities, and escalating procedural strain — did the claimant’s solicitor initiate a formal safeguarding alert, submit a protective application, or refer the conduct to the Solicitors Regulation Authority.
These omissions are not presented here as speculative failings.
They are preserved to acknowledge the absence of action that might have prevented what followed.
In Memory of our Manni-Boo
Who suffered on the day of the hearing — 29 October 2021 — and lost his life in the days that followed, not just from injury, but from the circumstances that surrounded it.
Between Collapse and Continuation
October didn’t end.
It echoed.
And while the system moved on
With emails, invoices, and procedural resets — our home didn’t.
The Court hearing passed.
But the harm hadn’t.
And as November arrived, the silence wasn’t healing.
It was avoidance.
Pretending October hadn’t happened didn’t protect us.
It just made the rebuilding lonelier.
The hearing didn’t arrive as resolution.
It arrived as confirmation.
Of silence, of absence, of everything I’d been forced to carry alone.
The solicitor had been actively involved March 2021.
She didn’t attend.
She didn’t brief.
She didn’t protect.
The barrister entered the hearing unarmed.
Not because he lacked skill.
Because he’d been denied the map.
Left with nothing but courtroom tone,
and clutching nothing but a Judge’s gavel.
The defence solicitor pressed for costs with precision
While denying me the mandatory bundle he was legally bound to provide.
Breaching procedural rules with ease without consequence.
The judge tried to steer a hearing
That had already collapsed.
When the transcript—when it finally arrived in March 2025
It didn’t just echo my fears.
It documented them.
This wasn’t a hearing.
It was a reckoning.
And the transcript
Became the Legal System’s Iinitial Record of Betrayal.
And it begins here.
Transcript – 29 October 2021 Hearing (Anonymised)
Deputy District Judge: Can both representatives hear me?
Defendant’s Solicitor: I can, sir.
Claimants’ Barrister: Yes, sir, I can. Thank you.
Deputy District Judge: Good. I’ve read the file and both applications. I’ve also reviewed the statements of case. "I don’t believe there’s any witness evidence in response to the applications from the claimants?"
Claimants’ Barrister: There is a witness statement dated 21 September 2021 from the claimant.
Deputy District Judge: Yes, I see.
Claimants’ Barrister: Just to clarify: there are two applications. One for default judgment, which is no longer pursued — only costs remain. The second is for strikeout. That application cannot be properly heard in the time allocated today. It would require a three-hour listing for submissions and judgment. We simply don’t have time.
Deputy District Judge: Understood. We’re starting late due to technical difficulties. I can go five minutes past noon, but I must move to another courtroom immediately after.
Claimants’ Barrister: To assist the court — and for the benefit of my colleague — the strikeout application concerns the particulars of claim. The argument is that they lack sufficient detail. As per the White Book, if a statement of case is defective, the court should consider whether it can be cured by amendment rather than struck out.
Deputy District Judge: Yes.
Claimants’ Barrister: So I’d ask whether directions could be given today.
Deputy District Judge: My first question was going to be: have you discussed the strikeout application between yourselves? Because the draft order from the Defendant’s Solicitor seems to suggest the claimants should amend their claim.
Claimants’ Barrister: I agree. We’ve discussed it, and that seems clear.
Deputy District Judge: Defendant’s Solicitor, is that your position?
Defendant’s Solicitor: Absolutely, sir.
Deputy District Judge: So let’s cut to the chase. You’re seeking an order requiring the claimants to amend their particulars of claim?
Defendant’s Solicitor: That’s correct. Since the claim form was served, we’ve received further information. If that can be tidied up into a coherent set of particulars, we’re happy to proceed.
Deputy District Judge: You fairly point out that the claimants have included material in their defence to the counterclaim that should really sit within the particulars of claim. There’s authority stating that a claim should not be amended by subsequent pleadings. It’s the particulars that need to be amended.
Claimants’ Barrister: I have no objections. I’ve only just been instructed, but it’s clear the pleading needs substantive amendment. I’d request 21 days to meet with my client and prepare.
Deputy District Judge: Defendant’s Solicitor, do you agree to 21 days?
Defendant’s Solicitor: Yes, sir. I’d ask for a reciprocal 21 days to file our amended defence.
Deputy District Judge: Very well. I’ll use the draft order provided. Claimants shall file and serve amended particulars of claim by 19 November. Defendant shall file and serve amended defence by 10 December.
Defendant’s Solicitor: That’s acceptable.
Deputy District Judge: There will be no order on the default judgment application except in relation to costs. Does that resolve all substantive issues?
Both Representatives: Yes, sir.
Deputy District Judge: Can we deal with costs in the time remaining?
Claimants’ Barrister: I haven’t seen a statement of costs. The note yesterday said the Defendant’s Solicitor would serve one, but I haven’t received it.
Deputy District Judge: I’ve seen it. It was emailed to the court yesterday. Defendant’s Solicitor, can you forward it to your colleague?
Defendant’s Solicitor: Of course, sir.
Deputy District Judge: Claimants’ Barrister, if you receive it now and have a few minutes to review, can we proceed?
Claimants’ Barrister: Yes, certainly.
Deputy District Judge: I’ll do that now. Have you received the schedule?
Claimants’ Barrister: I have, sir. A quick housekeeping point — I was instructed by a firm of solicitors, although they’re no longer on the record. I haven’t had a direct access contract with the clients; my instructions came through the solicitors.
Deputy District Judge: Do you know if solicitors will be going back on the record?
Claimants’ Barrister: I’ll ask after this hearing whether I’m to draft a direct access agreement or not. I’ve got the schedule.
Deputy District Judge: There are two schedules, correct?
Defendant’s Solicitor: That’s right — one for each application.
Deputy District Judge: I’ll give you a couple of minutes to review, and then we’ll deal with the principle of costs and, if needed, assessment.
Claimants’ Barrister: Starting with the default judgment costs — is the first schedule £2,478?
Defendant’s Solicitor: No, that’s the strikeout one. The default judgment total is £1,263.
Deputy District Judge: Let’s deal with default judgment first. Have you had enough time to review?
Claimants’ Barrister: I have, sir.
Deputy District Judge: Defendant’s Solicitor, you’re asking for your costs?
Defendant’s Solicitor: Yes. This was a regular application. No defence to the counterclaim was filed. We made clear early on that we weren’t pursuing the substantive application — just costs.
Deputy District Judge: Claimants’ Barrister?
Claimants’ Barrister: I can’t argue against the principle. The application was regular, and no defence was filed in time. On quantum: the original costs were £633 — £255 for the application fee and 1.5 hours at £210/hour. That seems reasonable. The only increase would be for today’s hearing. I’d question the £126 for perusal and whether the notice of application was already costed. There’s a little to shave off, but the amount isn’t unreasonable.
Deputy District Judge: Defendant’s Solicitor, were the original costs £633?
Defendant’s Solicitor: Yes, sir. There’s been some extra work since, but I accept less time has been expended today. I’m happy to accept that.
Deputy District Judge: There’s a claim for counsel’s fee of £255?
Defendant’s Solicitor: That should be the court fee — my mistake.
Deputy District Judge: Anything further?
Both Representatives: No, sir.
Deputy District Judge: All right.
(12:02 pm– Judgment given)
Claimant: Thank you, Judge — I can’t hear you.
Deputy District Judge: Your barrister will explain the outcome.
The first part of paragraph 4 of my order will read:
“The claimants shall pay the defendant’s costs of the application dated 14 July 2021, summarily assessed on the standard basis at £1,000 including VAT.”
Defendant’s Solicitor: Thank you, sir.
Deputy District Judge: Your barrister will explain the outcome.
The first part of paragraph 4 of my order will read:
“The claimants shall pay the defendant’s costs of the application dated 14 July 2021, summarily assessed on the standard basis at £1,000 including VAT.”
Defendant’s Solicitor: Thank you, sir.
Deputy District Judge: Let’s deal with assessment.
Claimants’ Barrister: Reviewing the schedule, I wasn’t aware of any direct telephone conversations between the claimants and the defendant.
Defendant’s Solicitor: I attempted to call several times. The calls were brief — the phone was picked up and put down — but I made the attempt and believe it’s justified to include in costs.
Claimants’ Barrister: I’ll leave that to the court. Regarding letters and emails: one letter, an unclear number of emails, and another half-hour call claimed. Plus 0.7 hours for correspondence. That doesn’t seem justified.
Attendance at hearing: we’ve spent less than 25 minutes, not the two hours claimed.
Perusal of documents would’ve happened regardless — not a direct result of this application.
Preparation of defence and counterclaim doesn’t fit here.
Notice of application is proper.
Submissions for hearing — two hours claimed, including 15 minutes for default — is for the court to assess.
Deputy District Judge: Defendant’s Solicitor?
Defendant’s Solicitor: Communications were mostly by email. I sent draft orders and a trial bundle index, which were agreed.
Two hours includes prep and hearing time. I prepared assuming the claimants would attend in person.
I accept a reduction.
Regarding the hearing fee — that was the application fee, not counsel’s fee.
I reviewed the claimants’ reply and related documents.
The defence and counterclaim will now need to be redone, so that time is wasted.
If the claimants had initiated the amendment, I’d seek costs as a condition — same principle applies.
I prepared submissions to assist the claimant, who is a litigant in person. I don’t believe that was unreasonable.
Deputy District Judge: Anything further?
Claimants’ Barrister: No, sir.
Deputy District Judge: Thank you.
(12:18 pm – Judgment given)
(12:19 pm)If I take your net figure of £2,478 and deduct one hour of attendance and £462, I reach £1,806.
Add VAT: £2,167.02.
Add court fee: £2,422.02.
That’s the figure I allow on assessment.
Claimants’ Barrister: £2,422.02?
Deputy District Judge: Correct.
Paragraph 5 of my order:
“The claimants shall pay the defendant’s costs of the application dated 24 June 2021, summarily assessed on the standard basis at £2,422.02 including VAT.”
Anything else?
Defendant’s Solicitor: It would be helpful to have a direct means of communication. If solicitors go back on the record, great. Otherwise, direct contact would help move things forward.
Deputy District Judge: There’s no order I can make on that.
Claimants’ Barrister: I have no direct communication beyond email.
Deputy District Judge: Understood. Your request is noted.
Defendant’s Solicitor: Thank you.
Claimants’ Barrister: Thank you, sir.
Deputy District Judge: That concludes the hearing. Everyone may disconnect.
(12:22 pm – Hearing concluded)
Letter of Judge to be added. However…
The Judge who presided over the 29 October 2021 hearing paused the release of the transcript.
That decision was unusual. The transcripts for the other two hearings—heard by different a Judge—who released both transcripts without delay. But this one was held back?
The Judge’s letter explaining that pause will be added shortly.
However, what follows was written before the letter arrived—because the pause itself was already telling.
We didn’t need the letter to know something was off.
We had the silence.
We had the delay.
We had the contrast.
And when the letter is finally added, it won’t just fill a gap.
It will confirm the instinct that built this capsule.
Design & Copyright Owner Maureen Booth-Martin (MBM) © All rights reserved
| Visitor Counter: | |||||||
 |  |  |  | |  | ||